设计概念生成中设计师推理与谬误的协议分析

Q1 Arts and Humanities Archives of Design Research Pub Date : 2023-08-31 DOI:10.15187/adr.2023.08.36.3.341
Hayoung Jung, Yeongmog Park
{"title":"设计概念生成中设计师推理与谬误的协议分析","authors":"Hayoung Jung, Yeongmog Park","doi":"10.15187/adr.2023.08.36.3.341","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background To understand the design concept generation process inference, this study aims to identify the designer's reasoning process and the various aspects accompanying the fallacy. We tried to develop the classification scheme of fallacy applied schemes in argumentation rhetoric and cognitive psychology to explore the discriminability in designers’ reasoning. Methods Retrospective protocols were collected to analyze. First, two coding schemes of design activity elements and fallacies of designers’ reasoning in the design concept generation process were derived by examining domestic and foreign studies on design reasoning. Second, the designers’ fallacy classification system was proposed to embrace the characteristics of design reasoning, selectively resorting to the typological list. Third, we analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively the protocol data of design activities and fallacies classified according to the coding schemes. Results In this study, various aspects of design errors were empirically identified by applying the fallacy classification system to the design field. According to the results of the study, designers were using different reasoning strategies according to their preferred approach and engaging in the various fallacies, the design concept generation process. The difference in reasoning strategy also had a significant effect on the difference in the proportion of logical fallacy types. Conclusions The criteria and classification schemes established in this study systematically detected and identified the fallacies or errors in design reasoning, and their effectiveness in the design field was exploratively confirmed. These conceptual frames and schemes can be used effectively in the feedback to improve the quality of the designers' reasoning.","PeriodicalId":52137,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Design Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Protocol Analysis of Designers’ Reasoning and Fallacies in Design Concept Generation\",\"authors\":\"Hayoung Jung, Yeongmog Park\",\"doi\":\"10.15187/adr.2023.08.36.3.341\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background To understand the design concept generation process inference, this study aims to identify the designer's reasoning process and the various aspects accompanying the fallacy. We tried to develop the classification scheme of fallacy applied schemes in argumentation rhetoric and cognitive psychology to explore the discriminability in designers’ reasoning. Methods Retrospective protocols were collected to analyze. First, two coding schemes of design activity elements and fallacies of designers’ reasoning in the design concept generation process were derived by examining domestic and foreign studies on design reasoning. Second, the designers’ fallacy classification system was proposed to embrace the characteristics of design reasoning, selectively resorting to the typological list. Third, we analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively the protocol data of design activities and fallacies classified according to the coding schemes. Results In this study, various aspects of design errors were empirically identified by applying the fallacy classification system to the design field. According to the results of the study, designers were using different reasoning strategies according to their preferred approach and engaging in the various fallacies, the design concept generation process. The difference in reasoning strategy also had a significant effect on the difference in the proportion of logical fallacy types. Conclusions The criteria and classification schemes established in this study systematically detected and identified the fallacies or errors in design reasoning, and their effectiveness in the design field was exploratively confirmed. These conceptual frames and schemes can be used effectively in the feedback to improve the quality of the designers' reasoning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Design Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Design Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2023.08.36.3.341\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Design Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2023.08.36.3.341","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了理解设计概念生成过程推理,本研究旨在识别设计师的推理过程以及伴随谬误的各个方面。我们试图将谬误分类图式应用于论证修辞学和认知心理学,以探讨设计者推理中的可辨别性。方法收集回顾性方案进行分析。首先,通过对国内外设计推理研究的梳理,推导出设计概念生成过程中设计活动要素和设计师推理谬误的两种编码方案;其次,根据设计推理的特点,提出了设计师谬误分类体系,并有选择地采用类型学表。第三,对按照编码方案分类的设计活动和谬误的协议数据进行定性和定量分析。结果在本研究中,通过将谬误分类系统应用于设计领域,经验地识别了设计错误的各个方面。根据研究结果,设计师根据自己喜欢的方法使用不同的推理策略,并参与各种谬误,设计概念的生成过程。推理策略的差异对逻辑谬误类型比例的差异也有显著影响。结论本研究建立的标准和分类方案系统地检测和识别了设计推理中的谬误或错误,并探索性地证实了其在设计领域的有效性。这些概念框架和方案可以有效地用于反馈,以提高设计者的推理质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Protocol Analysis of Designers’ Reasoning and Fallacies in Design Concept Generation
Background To understand the design concept generation process inference, this study aims to identify the designer's reasoning process and the various aspects accompanying the fallacy. We tried to develop the classification scheme of fallacy applied schemes in argumentation rhetoric and cognitive psychology to explore the discriminability in designers’ reasoning. Methods Retrospective protocols were collected to analyze. First, two coding schemes of design activity elements and fallacies of designers’ reasoning in the design concept generation process were derived by examining domestic and foreign studies on design reasoning. Second, the designers’ fallacy classification system was proposed to embrace the characteristics of design reasoning, selectively resorting to the typological list. Third, we analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively the protocol data of design activities and fallacies classified according to the coding schemes. Results In this study, various aspects of design errors were empirically identified by applying the fallacy classification system to the design field. According to the results of the study, designers were using different reasoning strategies according to their preferred approach and engaging in the various fallacies, the design concept generation process. The difference in reasoning strategy also had a significant effect on the difference in the proportion of logical fallacy types. Conclusions The criteria and classification schemes established in this study systematically detected and identified the fallacies or errors in design reasoning, and their effectiveness in the design field was exploratively confirmed. These conceptual frames and schemes can be used effectively in the feedback to improve the quality of the designers' reasoning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Archives of Design Research
Archives of Design Research Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Archives of Design Research (ADR) is an international journal publishing original research in the field of design, including industrial design, visual communication design, interaction design, space design, and service design. It also invites research outcomes from design-related interdisciplinary fields such as the humanities, arts, technology, society and business. It is an open-access journal, publishing four issues per year. Currently papers are published in both English and Korean with an English abstract. ADR aims to build a strong foundation of knowledge in design through the introduction of basic, applied and clinical research. ADR serves as a venue and platform to archive and transfer fundamental design theories, methods, tools and cases. Research areas covered in the journal include: -Design Theory and its Methodology -Design Philosophy, Ethics, Values, and Issues -Design Education -Design Management and Strategy -Sustainability, Culture, History, and Societal Design -Human Behaviors, Perception, and Emotion -Semantics, Aesthetics and Experience in Design -Interaction and Interface Design -Design Tools and New Media -Universal Design/Inclusive Design -Design Creativity -Design Projects and Case Studies
期刊最新文献
Analysis of Design Friction for Mobile Service UI based on the Sensitivity of Personal Information Types Elements and Systematization of ‘Reading Picture’ in Textless Picture Books through Semiotics The Effect of Advertising Types in Mobile Marketing Design on Consumer Advertisement Acceptability and Purchase Intention The Design of an AI Care Robot Based on Intimacy for the Emotional Stability of the Elderly Reconstructing the Content and Context of the KBS Special Feature “The World Is in an Era of Design Revolution”(1983)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1